[trestenhortz]

The real problem with C and C++ is you have to be an expert to not make disastrous errors. And you have to always get it right.

[gypsyharlot]

And the industry's experts who are famous for writing "idiomatic C" keep making mistakes constantly that result in new CVEs.

[josefx]

There often is a choice of using a safer solution over raw performance. In C++ for example you can fight C strings, or you can just use std::string, there is no need to always go with the dangerous solution when that piece of code isn't a bottleneck.

[pjmlp]

The main problem here is how Animats refers on his post, 90% politics, and many organizations are too ingrained into C culture.

It might not matter at all for what is being developed, but in no way are you going to spend those extra 5ms required for safer code.

[Cthulhu_]

C/C++ is a potential footgun, but it has its place for applications where they need precise control.

[the-smug-one]

You're not precise though. Precise ought not mean "It is possible to express precise thought regarding memory, yada yada, in this language", it ought mean "A person is capable of expressing precise thought regarding [...] in this language, without making mistakes".

[tene]

Could you offer some insight or examples of where or how C permits or enabled more-precise control than is permitted or enabled by Rust?

[wvenable]

You need unsafe in Rust just to do a doubly-linked list.

[a1369209993]

> You need unsafe in Rust just to [implement] a doubly-linked list.

And? That's what unsafe is for.

[tene]

Yes, I agree, you can implement a doubly-linked list in Rust exactly as you can in C, with the same precise control.

You can even implement intrusive collections: https://docs.rs/intrusive-collections/

Unsafe is a normal part of the language, and how you manually implement precise control behind a safe reusable abstraction whose correct use can be verified by the compiler.

Do you have any examples of precise control you can express in C, but can't express in Rust?